Discussion Topics

Descartes' most acclaimed contribution to the field of philosophy are the famous words "I think therefore I am." He came to this conclusion after casting a cartesian doubt upon the world and extrapolating from it that the only thing he could truly be certain about in life was the fact that he was alive because of his very capacity to think. This speaks to the time of the enlightenment where reason was revered as the item of utmost importance in life. 

Descartes' method of radical doubt asks us to question everything we think we know.  Imagine you wake up tomorrow with no memories, no sense of self, just the raw experience of existing.  What is the first thing you become certain of?  According to Descartes, it is the act of doubting itself. His famous phrase is a starting point, but is "I think" truly the only foundation for certainty?  Can we be sure of anything else besides the act of thinking itself?  Share your thoughts on the limitations or potential of this foundational principle. Have you found yourself in moments in life where you needed to confront true doubt over your existence? Perhaps it wasn't so grand, perhaps you needed to doubt your surroundings, perhaps you doubted yourself. Share what led you to these contemplations and the knowledge you extracted from them. 

Descartes argued for substance dualism, where mind and body are fundamentally different substances. The mind (res cogitans) is immaterial and can think, while the body (res extensa) is physical and takes up space.

"The soul is a being or substance which is not at all corporeal, whose nature is solely to think."

However this theory poses some vital questions with regard to our existence. Descartes posited that the mind was somehow removed from the body, however a deeper look into human neurology demonstrates how intricately our decision making, perception and thought process (ie. the composites of the mind) are commanded by the physical functioning of the brain. So much of our lived experience is also so intricately tied to our physical interaction with the world. Given this, how do you interperate Descartes' view on substance dualism? Is the mind essential and not the body and can the mind thus live on without the body? 

Descartes' ontological argument aims to prove God's existence through reason alone. It defines God as the greatest imaginable being, and argues that such a being would be greater if it actually existed. Therefore, God must exist. He also posits this through pondering a lack of God.

"Well, if God didn’t exist, from what would I derive my existence? It would have to come from myself, or from my parents, or from some other beings less perfect than God (a being more perfect than God, or even one as perfect, is unthinkable).

If I had derived my existence from myself, I would not now doubt or want or lack anything at all; for I would have given myself all the perfections of which I have any idea. So I would be God. [...]

Given the failure of every other candidacy for the role of cause of me and of my idea of a most perfect being, I infer that the only successful candidacy is God’s. Thus, I conclude that the mere fact that I exist and have within me an idea of a most perfect being – that is, God – provides a clear proof that God does indeed exist." 

One could argue that Descartes actually redefines God rather than proves existence, and that existence itself isn't a perfection. In addition, we can mark a seperation here in between the existence of God and the notion of Faith. Is the ontological argument a valid conclusion to the existence of God? What is God without religion? How do your views on the notion of God speak to Descartes claims?